<beneroth>
yeah switching to readline might have been a mistake, in hindsight
<Regenaxer>
And I don't know what it does under the hood
<Regenaxer>
I think the decision was right
<beneroth>
some pointer ownership misunderstanding might cause both of the current symptoms, right
<Regenaxer>
These problems must be handled in any line editor
<Regenaxer>
signals, raw mode etc
<Regenaxer>
history
<beneroth>
well your own implementation in pil64 did it mostly well, except for the standardized config file, no?
<Regenaxer>
other things were not good either
<Regenaxer>
Kanji handling, vi-mode compatibility
<beneroth>
ah okay, I have no experience with that :)
<Regenaxer>
hmm, perhaps Kanji were ok after some time
<Regenaxer>
yes, worked
<Regenaxer>
But many vi-commands were not supported
<beneroth>
I think the GPL will cause me some annoyances with one of my products.. I don't mind handing over all the source (that is done anyway with picolisp source) but in certain cases I like to restrict the rights of the software owner
<beneroth>
I understand
<beneroth>
makes sense
<Regenaxer>
I think the GPL was a non-issue. Anyone can change it
<Regenaxer>
*if* he *distributes* it
<Regenaxer>
for your local use it should be no problem anyway
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
my specific case is about installation on premise on the client side, so it's a distribution
<Regenaxer>
My final conlusion was that it is no problem
<beneroth>
hm your right....
<Regenaxer>
pil does not distribute readline
<beneroth>
it links, that is enough
<Regenaxer>
only *links* to it
<Regenaxer>
no
<beneroth>
otherwise there would be no reason for LGPL to exist
<Regenaxer>
That lawyer we cited said it is ok
<beneroth>
ah ok
<beneroth>
anyway right it should not affect me
<beneroth>
in worst case this should only affect picolisp distro
<Regenaxer>
I think so
<beneroth>
not application code interpreted by picolisp
<Regenaxer>
In any case the lawyers also have different opinions
<beneroth>
same as GCC license does not apply to anything compiled with it
<beneroth>
yeah
<beneroth>
but the risk is not about right or wrong
<beneroth>
the risk is about having to fight a court battle or not :)
<Regenaxer>
T
<Regenaxer>
What could be the accusation in court? That I distribute readline? I don't distribute it. I distribute *text* that contains some names from the readline documentation ;)
<beneroth>
no risks for you
<Regenaxer>
yeah, easy for me ;)
<Regenaxer>
It could be a problem fo you? Cause you don't wan to give away some code?
<aw->
beneroth: i'll be back in a bit to discuss this
aw- has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<beneroth>
Regenaxer, no issue with giving the source, but for one system I have a restriction added that they only are allowed to use it for one productive instance
<Regenaxer>
ok
<Regenaxer>
I found the problem with double free
<beneroth>
and also not allowed to resell/redistribute except in case of company takeover or such
<Regenaxer>
indeed my fault
<Regenaxer>
readline in re-entered
<Regenaxer>
s/in/is
<Regenaxer>
So free is called indeed twice
<beneroth>
so no issue with MIT, but in violation of GPL... and I think using picolisp with readline makes picolisp GPL. but then again this should not make picolisp application code GPL
<beneroth>
ah
<Regenaxer>
Depends on the lib if it complains
<beneroth>
yeah the joys of C :)
<beneroth>
ah
<Regenaxer>
T
<Regenaxer>
I added a simple check. Testing
aw- has joined #picolisp
<aw->
back
<Regenaxer>
Hi aw-!
<Regenaxer>
btw, I fixed the double-free issue you mentioned
<aw->
Regenaxer: that lawyer you cited is the one who wrote the GPL license
<Regenaxer>
oh, really? Cool
<aw->
he's also the founder of the Software Freedom Law Center
<Regenaxer>
sounds good
<aw->
in any case, picolisp does not "become GPL" just because you link to it
<aw->
let's make that clear
<aw->
secondly, if you distribute **any** GPL software, you **must** provide the sources for it
<aw->
lastly, you will NOT go to court for distributing GPL software without the sources, because you will be given a chance to comply with the license first, and if that is unsatisfactory you **could** be forced to turn over your own private closed source code which **links** to that GPL software
<aw->
beneroth: in other words (and i'm not a lawyer so whatever), you don't have to make a huge panic about it
<aw->
however you should comply with the license by making the sources of the GPL you distribute available
mtsd has joined #picolisp
<aw->
even my customers got audited by Black Duck Software (https://www.blackducksoftware.com/) and they were fine, because we provide the necessary sources in an accessible manner
<aw->
but this is anecdotal, not sure how it applies in your country, but nobody just "takes you to court and wipes you clean" when you did everything you could to comply
<aw->
the law doesn't state that you CAN'T link to GPL software
<aw->
all the problems we've seen so far is because companies abuse OSS and completely disregard the licenses, AND make a shit ton of money from it without contributing anything back
<beneroth>
aw-, T
<beneroth>
and I'm all about enforcing that stuff
<aw->
and in EVERY litigation case against this GPL stuff, it was always because "without providing corresponding source code"
<aw->
so just ship the damn source code and move-on with your life
<aw->
it's not difficult
<Regenaxer>
right
<aw->
but i'm not a lawyer, so don't take my advice ;)
<Regenaxer>
sure
<Regenaxer>
beneroth, btw, the Jitsi mobile app now supports screen sharing too! \☺/
<Regenaxer>
Suddenly
<Regenaxer>
Perfect for me now
<Regenaxer>
Don't need a deskop browser any more
<beneroth>
yay great
<Regenaxer>
No reason any longer to look for alternatives, right?
<beneroth>
I'll guess not.
<beneroth>
I should look into recording eventually
<Regenaxer>
yes, that is desired by some people
<beneroth>
but afaik the jitsi parts are there, I probably just have to setup some additional parts to allow recording
<Regenaxer>
"Mathematically Sound Version Control"
<beneroth>
aw-, I'm not afraid at all from GPL enforcement. I ship with all source code anyway, no problem. Only risk I see is my customer trying to get around license restrictions by claiming GPL applies to all of it. But that is probably irrelevant theorizing :)
<beneroth>
Regenaxer, "mathematically sound" sounds like haskell.. mathematicall beautiful, not really practical except for some niche cases where you want that mathematical soundness...
<Regenaxer>
T
<Regenaxer>
perhaps provable
<aw->
beneroth: haha
<aw->
beneroth: for your customers, that's what EULA is for
<aw->
and also, your own license... whichever one you choose
<aw->
we discussed this already, but it's good to let your customer have access to your source code
<aw->
good karma
<aw->
there will always be bad apples maybe who try to "steal" your software, but i think that's not the norm
<aw->
in most cases if you try to conceal your source, you are going to hurt them more than anything
<aw->
it's like DRM, the pirates still always manage to decrypt/access the data, and the legit customers who paid for their eBooks end up screwed because they can't copy them to a new device
<aw->
beneroth: yur customer will do what with GPL restrictions? they will ask you to provide your software's source code? if you give them access from the start, they will not complain
<aw->
your*
<aw->
like DRM, there's no point trying to restrict what we know will eventually be unrestricted by people who care enough
<aw->
waste of time waste of money
<aw->
even Blu-Ray, which has a pretty brilliant copy-protection scheme, still gets bypassed (with some effort)
<aw->
how much money did Sony invest in that? failure
mtsd_ has joined #picolisp
<aw->
aaaanyways, perhaps the real solution is to 100% avoid the GPL
<aw->
but that's... not easy
mtsd has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<aw->
Regenaxer: perhaps this is what others on the mailing list allude to, because there's a chilling effect from using anything that touches GPL-licensed software
<aw->
even if there's no chance of having litigation, people fear it
<aw->
so maybe the real issue here is a social issue, not a legal one.
m_mans has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mtsd__ has joined #picolisp
mtsd__ has quit [Client Quit]
mtsd_ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<Regenaxer>
aw-, indeed. Thats the psychological aspect
<beneroth>
aw-, I talk about the EULA/licensee being claimed to be invalid (by a customer, not by a GPL/FOSS institute)
<beneroth>
I have no panic and no problem
<beneroth>
I just like to think about this stuff, even when the changes are low that it hits me in the back.
<beneroth>
aw-, I'm completely on the same view as you concerning DRM and source code access
<beneroth>
what I say here is: from a legal theoretical standpoint you can put an EULA (or similar) on GPL'ed software
<beneroth>
*you cannot (!) put an EULA on GPL'ed software
<aw->
i never said that
<aw->
the EULA goes on **your** software
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
the point is: is interpreter <-> software based on that interpreter different pieces for license legalese or not.
<beneroth>
current understanding: yes, different pieces, can have different licenses.
<aw->
like i said, the issue is social
<aw->
it's not a discussion about the legality of using/distributing, it's about how people feel and how they interpret things. Once you get over that then you can live happily. Otherwise it's just eternal debate.
<beneroth>
T, different issue than the one I was talking about
<beneroth>
I think the right licensee depends on the type of software. Infrastructure & tooling: MIT. Application software: GPL
<aw->
i think nothing should ever be GPL'd
<beneroth>
interesting, something where we disagree. :D
<beneroth>
so you say: either MIT (or equal), OR fully proprietary?
<aw->
GPL is a mistake and i entirely believe it's a cancer license
<aw->
MIT/BSD, Apache, MPL-2.0
<beneroth>
especially in database software markets there was some discussions about this in recent years... many published their NoSQL stuff as GPL or MIT/Apache...
<beneroth>
then AWS used that software to offer as a SaaS and out-compete the original creators
<aw->
yes, that's a given
<beneroth>
then they switch to proprietary licensees
<aw->
yes, well you can't give free candy and then take it away
<beneroth>
T
<aw->
they made a bad decision in their license choice from the start
<beneroth>
T
<aw->
so that's their problem
<aw->
and they tried to fix it with a proprietary license
<beneroth>
AGPL tries to be a license for that use case (though for idealistic purposes: user should have access to source, not about business viability)
<aw->
haha yeah but AGPL didn't stop AWS from providing a SaaS of the software
<beneroth>
no? example? I'm not aware of one..interesting
<beneroth>
but yes, of course they can still do an offering and outcompete on service :)
<aw->
MongoDB
<aw->
it was AGPL
<beneroth>
ah, I thought it was only GPL
<beneroth>
you're right
<beneroth>
MongoDB were assholes for claiming their new license to be an open source license
<aw->
anyways the problem with these GPL licenses is they don't provide developer freedom, they provide software freedom. Where the software is given higher priority than the developer using/writing it.
<beneroth>
(and also for making all the time false claims about the quality/capabilities of their software, in my understanding of developer honor, but nvm)
<beneroth>
well yes
<beneroth>
GNU licensees are all about software users freedomes
<beneroth>
not software creators
<beneroth>
they never claimed otherwise, I think
<aw->
yes, and so I disagree with that sentiment
<aw->
i think devs come first
<aw->
we're the ones writing software, spending hours and hours coding
<aw->
i don't care how freeloaders or businesses use my software, just don't get in my way of writing what i want or how i want
<aw->
GPL gets in the way of innovation, specifically because they prevent developers from writing what they want
<aw->
ask Regenaxer with this readline fiasco
<aw->
it's non-sense
<beneroth>
why? for your own software you are not under obligations of GPL
<aw->
waste of time
<beneroth>
well with your attitude you should never use GPL'ed software at all
<aw->
you are under obligation to license your code as GPL if it includes GPL licensed code
<aw->
it's ridiculous
<beneroth>
ofc course when I go for a library, I take the MIT one over the GPL one, as a developer. naturally
<aw->
that's not freedom
<beneroth>
you don't need to use the GPL code
<beneroth>
else this is a debate about how long should copyright be valid for anything
<aw->
no no no i'm not talking about length or copyrights
<aw->
copyrights are different.. you write the software, you own it, period.
<beneroth>
why?
<beneroth>
its a complete artificial socially made up thing
<beneroth>
(as soon as you gave a copy of the software away)
<aw->
so you're saying everything you create shouldn't belong to you?
<beneroth>
why should it when I gave it away? as long as I don't give it away, it's owned by me, as no one else can practically do anything with it
<aw->
licenses are for usage, not ownership
<beneroth>
but once I give it away.. why should they not do with it whatever they like to do?
<aw->
anwyays
<aw->
i dont know what point you're trying to make
<aw->
my point is: GPL is horrible, and i choose to NEVER license anything ever under GPL, unless of course it's based on existing GPL then i literally have no choice but to license under GPL as well -- which is why I hate GPL
<beneroth>
my point is: if you wish all software to be MIT-licensed and to abolish GPL and proprietary licensees.. then I see no practical difference to asking for abolishing of all copyright and patent laws.
<beneroth>
(which I would be in favor of)
<aw->
ok
<aw->
but i think you misinterpreted what the MIT license does
<beneroth>
attribution. what more?
<aw->
it gives you permission to **use** and distribute the software however you want, with ONE single condition: you maintain the license and attribution
<aw->
yes
<aw->
that is **very** important
<beneroth>
for what?
<aw->
it means that "beneroth created X" - forever
<aw->
no matter how many people change it or improve it, YOU are the original creator
<beneroth>
I get the psychological/social value of that
<beneroth>
but in practical terms it has no effect whatsorever, except for clearly defining who the legal copyright holder is
<aw->
and also the person receiving the software gets the same freedoms to use/distribute the software according to the license
<aw->
so you can relicense an MIT to GPL, but you still have to provide the MIT license as well, so that GPL software will essentially be dual-licensed - forever
<beneroth>
only direct receivers. indirect one might have a additional restrictions on their copy. of course they must be told the origin of the piece, and they can get a copy there...but that doesn't help so much, does it
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
but the MIT version will be cease to be useful
<beneroth>
the extended GPL version is the one which will survive
<beneroth>
(or extended proprietary software version.. GPL vs. proprietary doesn't make a difference for this use case)
<aw->
no no no
<aw->
you don't understand
<aw->
licenses can NOT have restrictions
<aw->
they can only have grants
<aw->
(aka permissions)
<beneroth>
yes, but the default os NO PERMISSIONS AT ALL
<beneroth>
(in all laws in nearly all countries)
<aw->
no, MIT license is all permissions by default
<beneroth>
if I take your MIT licenseed software
<aw->
so if you relicense as GPL, the only thing you're doing is giving additional permissions, not restrictions
<beneroth>
I can extend it, and redistribute the new software (yours + my extension) as GPL
<beneroth>
and everyone working with that bundle as to use GPL from then on forever
<aw->
you can't remove the MIT part dude
<beneroth>
yes they could take out your piece and use it as MIT again, yes
<aw->
no
<aw->
you can't remove MIT
<beneroth>
MIT (& co) is prone to EEE
<beneroth>
GPL & co much less so
<beneroth>
I agree with you, it would be a better world if everyone would be used to use MIT license for all software
<aw->
if you take my picolisp-json library, json.l, it is MIT, you can distribute it as with your GPL software and it would fall under the GPL license but you also **must** include the MIT license, therefore my json.l will perpetually be MIT for whoever receives it, even if your full software is GPL'd
<beneroth>
agreed
<beneroth>
but I extend JSON standard, until your MIT piece is useless without the GPLed extensions
<aw->
sure, you're allowed to change it however you want, but you can't remove the license ;)
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
the point is, this EEE game is not possible with GPLed software, or at least not on the code level.
<aw->
that's why it's a good license, not to mention that it's so bloody simple to understand
<beneroth>
android is a good example where EEE was still done
<beneroth>
aw-, I agree, I love MIT too :)
<beneroth>
but I can understand the value people see in GPL
<beneroth>
MIT gives dev freedoms
<aw->
of course the downside is you don't have to distribute your changes to the software
<aw->
(with MIT)
<beneroth>
GPL makes a longer survival and usability of the software more likely, I would claim
<aw->
yes
<aw->
because you can take my json.l and reduce it to just (setq *Hello 'world), and you can binary encode it and dont tell anyone what it does
<beneroth>
T
<aw->
and my code is basically "dead" from there
<aw->
however, the license remains haha
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
:)
<aw->
dunno, i think that's good
<aw->
sounds stupid, because nobody will do that
<beneroth>
I think I would want to put MIT on everything I want to become a standard, including a standard for commercial stuff
<beneroth>
what will nobody do?
<aw->
yeah, but don't forget your MIT software can just be changed by anyone and distributed as closed source even
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
MIT makes forking easier, in a way.
<aw->
so don't plan to make money from it if it's MIT licensed
<beneroth>
and I think in some areas it is good to have many forks (good as in "beneficial for human society in general") and some areas many forks are a catastrophe (because all the forks are then bad)
<beneroth>
in the second case, I think GPL is more appropriate, as it would force more improvements getting into a single product which than can actually provide some value versus a sandbox full of developer toys
<aw->
MPL-2.0 is a good middle ground
<aw->
you should look into it
rob_w has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<aw->
well the GPL problem is its virulence
xaty has joined #picolisp
<aw->
the fact that it forces your own private changes into GPL is a huge problem
<beneroth>
what do you think about EPL (eclipse licensee) ?
<beneroth>
it's kinda a quite restricted GPL
<aw->
no
<beneroth>
aw-, that is by design, RMS desires an software communism where all software is freely shared and copyright abolished, so I understand him. Instead of campaigning for abolishing copyright he hacked it with the GPL.
<aw->
the problem with EPL is it has a clause about indemnifying contributors against financial losses in litigation cases etc
<aw->
it's crazy
<beneroth>
aw-, and yes I decided against GPLed libraries in the past and used inferior ones licensed as MIT instead because I have more freedom and control that way
<beneroth>
you mean the patent clause?
<aw->
"Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent caused by the acts or omissio
<aw->
s of such Commercial Contributor in connection with its distribution of the Program in a commercial product offering. "
<aw->
sorry long paste
<aw->
it's part of the EPL license under commercial distribution
<beneroth>
I understand that: if I make a product based on EPL from person X, then if my customers take X to court I have to pay X's court spending?
<aw->
basically, if you're making money from the EPL licensed software, you're held financially liable to pay for the EPL author's legal fees etc in case your software causes them to go to court
<aw->
yes
<aw->
exactly
<beneroth>
sounds like a trap :D
<aw->
no shit
<aw->
ahahahaha
xaty has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<beneroth>
I should publish some software with EPL and get a laywer xD
<aw->
Hahahaa unsuspectingly include it in pil21's @misc/bene.l
<beneroth>
aw-, MPL looks nice. sounds like MIT + additional requirement to re-distribute also the source of the MPL-pieces
<beneroth>
aw-, exactly ;-)
<beneroth>
but then they can defend themselves claiming it became GPL when it was linked to readline :P
<aw->
MPL-2.0 is good, you can fully include it in your programs without affecting your program's source code license
<beneroth>
that is the only reason I don't want readline in pil, of course *evil grin*
<aw->
beneroth: haha
<beneroth>
I will reconsider MPL, thanks for the hint!
<aw->
MPL-2.0 is a bit of a pain, it requires a header in **every file**
<beneroth>
oh okay, that kills it x
<aw->
because the license covers files, not a body of work
<beneroth>
hm
<beneroth>
but actually makes more sense than all other licenses for picolisp source code xD
<aw->
well the header is just 3 lines
<beneroth>
because with picolisp you cannot really discuss where the border of a body of work is... where it starts and end, I would say
<beneroth>
yeah, header can be scripted of course ;)
<aw->
yah exactly, like.. i wrote a rest api in picolisp
<aw->
licensed MPL-2.0
<aw->
all my files have the 3-line header
<aw->
but you can easily modify one file like (load "newcode.l")
<aw->
and that newcode.l can do anything you want, and have any license
<aw->
and i dont care
<aw->
your code your license
<beneroth>
ah just get a basic income to everyone and lets get rid of all those artifical barriers, I sa
<aw->
but you're obliged to distribute that modified file with the changes you made under the same MPL-2.0 license
<beneroth>
yeah, I cannot delete your original file
<beneroth>
good approach
<aw->
it doesn't protect from people using it in SaaS though
<aw->
like the AWS problem
<aw->
if they use my MPL-2.0 rest API on their own servers, and make their own picolisp changes to it, they don't have to release those changes
<aw->
because it's technically not "distribution"
<aw->
tbh i have no idea how they worked around the MongoDB AGPL thing
<aw->
ohhhh ok i see
<aw->
AWS didn't "work around" the license
<aw->
they basically just ran it out of the box as a SaaS
<aw->
nothing wrong with that
<aw->
mongodb thought it was wrong so they changed the license lol. Oh well.
<aw->
beneroth: i can't discuss this anymore
<aw->
g'nite!
<Regenaxer>
See you aw-
<Regenaxer>
Thanks for the nice discussion
<beneroth>
aw-, thanks, good night!
<beneroth>
thanks for the discussion, I learned some new things!
<beneroth>
mongodb were good in marketing, everything else they did wrong, I think...
<beneroth>
aw-, I much appreciate our discussions, thank you :)
lodsw has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<tankf33der>
why did not include cc0 licence, full freedom.
lodsw has joined #picolisp
lodsw has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
lodsw has joined #picolisp
<shoshin>
imho, its crucial that user freedoms are preserved. in a world that is increasingly controlled and manipulated by software, a license like the GPL can protect people.
<tankf33der>
eh.
<beneroth>
tankf33der, yeah CC0 - practically abolishing copyright, right? As I said, good thing, but only really once the rules are the same for everyone. Until then I think one should consider which license one chooses for serious projects.
<beneroth>
shoshin, minor but consequential difference if you focus on freedoms of devs or users.
<beneroth>
I agree with the need for user control, but then again most users don't want it, and the issues we have (e.g. Walled Garden, vendor lock-in) are not really solvable by licensing (because its about the whole environment, not just code)
<shoshin>
yeah, don't necessarily think the GPL is the "answer", but a tool to deal with a problem
<beneroth>
long but insightful. I find Cory Doctorow is a quite important philosopher/commentator on current times
<shoshin>
(i should be working, instead discussing freedoms, empowerment and morals all over irc)
<beneroth>
(yeah, you are a slave, but please forget it)
<beneroth>
;-)
* shoshin
sighs
<shoshin>
;)
<beneroth>
[OT] A recent study finds people would rather choose physical pain than do a task that requires them to think hard: https://elifesciences.org/articles/59410
<beneroth>
that explains A LOT.... m( facepalm smiley
<Regenaxer>
Very plausible
_whitelogger has joined #picolisp
<Blukunfando>
Why pick physical pain or thinking hard when you can have both?: https://xkcd.com/242/